In re Kuntz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kuntz

178 A.D. 911

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D. 911 (In re Kuntz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Kuntz, 178 A.D. 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York in May, 1898. On the 2d day of February, 1917, he was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York of the crime of conspiring to conceal assets from a trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding, which crime was a felony, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years at the United States penitentiary, Atlanta, Ga., and to pay a fine of $5,000. A certified copy of the judgment of conviction having been presented to this court and the petition herein having been duly served upon the respondent, and he not having appeared or answered he is disbarred under the provisions of section 477 of the Judiciary Law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York in May, 1898. On the 2d day of February, 1917, he was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York of the crime of conspiring to conceal assets from a trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding, which crime was a felony, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years at the United States penitentiary, Atlanta, Ga., and to pay a fine of $5,000. A certified copy of the judgment of conviction having been presented to this court and the petition herein having been duly served upon the respondent, and he not having appeared or answered he is disbarred under the provisions of section 477 of the Judiciary Law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D. 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kuntz-nyappdiv-1917.